Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumari Gupta vs Arun Gupta on 20 June, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.P.No.2792/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 2792 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJKUMARI GUPTA W/O LATE ASHOK
KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, R/O 12 CHOUKSEY NAGAR
BERASIYA ROAD DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ASHISH GUPTA S/O LATE ASHOK
KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, R/O 12 CHOUKSEY NAGAR
BERASIYA ROAD DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUMIT GUPTA S/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O 12
CHOUKSEY NAGAR BERASIYA ROAD,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAHUL GUPTA S/O LATE ASHOK
KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, R/O 12 CHOUKSEY NAGAR
BERASIYA ROAD DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. RUCHI GUPTA D/O LATE ASHOK
KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O 12 CHOUKSEY NAGAR
BERASIYA ROAD DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. NEERJA
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. ARUN GUPTA S/O LATE BABULAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI, LAKHERAPURA
2 M.P.No.2792/2021
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. MANORAMA GUPTA W/O LATE
SHRI VALLABH GUPTA R/O 14 NOORJI
BHOURA GALI LAKHERAPURA,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT.RITU GUPTA D/O LATE VALLABH
GUPTA R/O NEAR SAI BABA MANDIR
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI, KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT.SHOBHA GUPTA W/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 14 NOORJI
BHOURA GALI LAKHERAPURA,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. LAKHAN GUPTA S/O LATE BABULAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI LAKHERAPURA
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT.SHAKUN GUPTA W/O LATE
BHARAT GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, R/O 14 NOORJI BHOURA GALI
LAKHERAPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MS. PRACHI GUPTA D/O LATE BHARAT
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI LAKHERAPURA
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. KU.MUSKAN GUPTA D/O LATE BHARAT
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI LAKHERAPURA
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SHATRUGHAN GUPTA S/O LATE
BABULAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, R/O 14 NOORJI BHOURA GALI
LAKHERAPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. PAWAN GUPTA S/O LATE BABULAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI
3 M.P.No.2792/2021
LAKHERAPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SHIV GUPTA S/O LATE BABULAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI
LAKHERAPURA, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. KRISHNA GUPTA S/O LATE BABULAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI
LAKHERAPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SMT. RANI GUPTA D/O LATE BABULAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 14
NOORJI BHOURA GALI
LAKHERAPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
.........................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed against the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by 8th Civil Judge,
Class-II, Bhopal in RCS No.1095-A/2012 by which the application filed
by the petitioners seeking direction to the defendants to lead evidence
ahead of the petitioners/plaintiffs has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that they have
filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The
defendants also filed their counter claim. The civil suit was decreed by
judgment and decree dated 22.03.2016 passed in RCS No.1095-A/2012,
whereas the counter claim filed by the defendants/respondents was
dismissed.
3. The respondents preferred an appeal and filed applications under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as well as under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Both the
applications were allowed by the Appellate Court by judgment dated
19.05.2017 passed in RCA No.136-A/2016 by the Court of 15th
Additional District Judge, Bhopal and the matter was remanded back.
4. Against the order of remand, the petitioners have preferred M.A.
No.1709/2017 and by order dated 06.11.2017, it has been directed that
the proceedings of civil suit may go on but final judgment may not be
passed till the final disposal of this appeal.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that since
additional evidence was produced by the respondents and written
statement was amended at the appellate stage, therefore, in the light of
the liberty granted by the Appellate Court, the petitioners have also
carried out the consequential amendment. The petitioners filed an
application seeking a direction to the defendants to begin their evidence
in the light of the amended pleadings ahead of the petitioners but by the
impugned order, said application was rejected.
6. Challenging the order passed by the trial Court, it is submitted by
the counsel for the petitioners that since the order was remanded back
by allowing the amendment in the written statement as well as by taking
additional documents on record, therefore, the burden is on the
defendants to lead evidence ahead of the petitioners.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. The trial Court by rejecting the application has specifically
mentioned that the petitioners have failed to point out that the burden to
prove the additional issue is on the defendants. Even otherwise, it is
clear from the application filed under Section 151 of CPC that no reason
has been assigned by the petitioners as to why the evidence of the
defendants should be recorded ahead of the plaintiffs.
9. As no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the counsel for
the petitioners, accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
10. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Shanu
Digitally signed by SHANU
RAIKWAR
Date: 2023.06.27 18:56:14
+05'30'
